People are characterized by altruism, i.e. free help to other people, but some give free help not to people, but to animals, even homeless animals. The question arises: why do they do this? The staff of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University thought about this question. The results of their research were published in the journals Questions of Psychology and Society and Animals.

It must be said that in the world psychological literature there is very little research on the topic of helping homeless animals. Perhaps this is a consequence of the fact that all such studies were carried out in the USA and Western Europe, where charity is very developed. We can say that helping someone has become the norm of life there, a good tradition. And in these countries, apparently, they do not notice the difference between helping homeless people and helping homeless animals. It is not surprising that in all such works the question of the reasons for altruistic help to animals was not clearly posed, and therefore no clear answer was found. In Russia the situation is different. On the one hand, charity here is not yet very developed; in the corresponding international rankings, our country is in the second hundred. On the other hand, people who help animals (they are called animal activists) are quite active, they even hold rallies in defense of animals. Therefore, it can be assumed that animal protection is a special type of charity, different from helping people.

Psychologists have put forward two initial hypotheses about why people engage in animal protection. One hypothesis was that animal activists (the vast majority of them women) have problems communicating with people, which they compensate for by helping animals. That is, these people do not have a family and/or children or a job. It may also be that there is a family and work, but the animal rights activist is not satisfied with his family or work. Another hypothesis was that animal rights activists are more sensitive to the plight of others, including animals, than the average person. When an animal rights activist sees a stray dog, she cannot pass by, unlike ordinary people who are not captivated by this picture. The desire to engage in animal protection can be driven by both hypotheses, since they are not mutually exclusive.

The studies involved two groups of subjects (all women). One group consisted of animal rights activists who were found on the Cat and Dog website. The other group represented ordinary people and consisted of students, acquaintances and friends of the experimenters. The only difference between the groups was that representatives of the second group were not found on the animal rights website. The groups were matched by mean age. The studies were conducted via the Internet and were anonymous.

To test the first hypothesis, all subjects were asked whether they had a family, children, or work. If there was family and work, then satisfaction with them was assessed using special questionnaires. To test the second hypothesis, it was proposed to rate on a five-point scale a number of statements about attitudes towards homeless animals, as well as attitudes towards beggars and homeless people.

The first hypothesis was not confirmed. It turned out that animal rights activists have a family, children, and work to the same extent as other people, and they are also satisfied with their family and work. It turned out that homeless animals evoke stronger feelings in animal rights activists than in other people, but, to the complete surprise of the researchers, it turned out that animal activists are less willing to care for homeless people than other subjects! For example, animal rights activists are less likely to be willing to give alms and they are less likely to want to help a homeless person. The second hypothesis, therefore, was also not supported, because it assumed that animal rights activists should care more about both animals and people.

It turns out that there are people who are ordinary in all respects, but who, to some extent, love animals more than people! Among the statements that had to be evaluated was this: “I love animals more than people.” The most common response (sampling mode) among animal rights activists was “absolutely true,” and among other people, “no, that’s not true.”

The question immediately arises of where animal activists come from. After all, no religion, no ethical teaching in the world believes that animals should be loved more than people. In addition, people raise animals to eat them. Those animals that are considered domesticated and not eaten in some countries may be eaten in others. Thus, the desire to engage in animal protection cannot be explained by the fact that some special attitude towards certain species of animals has become entrenched in society. Since the desire to engage in animal protection is difficult to derive from social norms, it is possible that some innate mechanism underlies the activity of animal rights activists.

It can be assumed that when the first animals were domesticated, and these were dogs, then in some tribes such animals were treated better, and in others worse. In those tribes where they were treated better, the survival rate of dogs was higher, and this in turn contributed to the survival of people. The love for animals in these groups was fixed at the genetic level, and then spread to the entire human population. This explanation has, however, one drawback. It is quite difficult to imagine a situation where animals are treated better, but people are not. At least in the modern world, the humanization of attitudes towards animals seems to be connected with the humanization of attitudes towards people. But then a stronger love for both animals and people should have been genetically transmitted. This would be consistent with the second original hypothesis of the study. But this hypothesis was not confirmed. It turns out that in order to develop only love for animals without increasing love for people, some event had to happen in which animals played a very important role in people's lives.

For example, it is known that when our ancestors came to Europe from Africa 45,000 years ago, Europe was inhabited by Neanderthals, who, however, died out soon after. Why did this happen? Until recently, it was assumed that Neanderthals lost because they were inferior in mental abilities. However, recently a lot of evidence has accumulated that Neanderthals were no more stupid than the ancestors of modern people. American researcher Pat Shipman put forward an interesting hypothesis that wolves, which they domesticated and turned into dogs, provided an advantage to people, and wrote an entire book on this topic. Hunting is much more efficient with dogs and that is why people won.

However, Shipman's hypothesis has a weak point - if Neanderthals were no more stupid than humans, why didn't they also domesticate wolves? One might think that people were able to domesticate wolves because among them, due to a random mutation, the ancestors of modern animal rights activists appeared. They protected and saved future dogs when they came to the camps of ancient hunters, just as fiercely as their descendants protect and save animals today. Indeed, hunting is not an easy task, and here the game comes on its own, but ancient animal rights activists did not allow animals to be killed, which led to the gradual transformation of wolves into dogs. But the Neanderthals did not have such a mutation, so they were unable to domesticate wolves and then disappeared. It turns out that humanity is very indebted to animal rights activists. Of course, to test this or other hypotheses about the emergence of a desire to help animals for free, new research is needed.

• The need to be loved often leads us to attribute to animals the capacity for unconditional love.
• The pleasure and positive emotions that we experience from communicating with them make us see our own, human traits in them.
• If building relationships with others is difficult, some people prefer an idealized image of “good” animals to interacting with “bad” people.

Lyalka wears a plaid skirt and knows how to give a paw. Her owner Elena is very proud of her. Lyalka is not a puppy or a kitten, but an iguana. It would seem that what touching can be found in a giant lizard? But we can accept any feathered, furry or scaly creature as a pet - we just have to believe in the possibility of mutual love between us. 70% of pet owners say that they sometimes allow their pet to sleep in the same bed with them, and two-thirds give gifts for the New Year*. We seem to be drawn to them by the dream of unconditional love. Psychologist Hal Herzog is sure that this idea is greatly overrated: if animals were really so generous with unconditional love, absolutely everyone would keep pets. But this is not so. Additionally, 15% of adults say they dislike their pets**. “I must admit,” the psychologist writes, that I liked the idea of ​​unconditional love more when my wife and I had a dog. Now we are keeping a cat. Tilly loves me when I cook her food or let her take a nap when she wants me to scratch her belly... But most of the time I'm nothing more to her than the guy who opens the window when the cat wants to go for a walk."

We treat them like children

There is no exact data on when human attachment to animals first arose. Anthropologists believe that this happened 35–40 thousand years ago and was associated with the emergence in ancient man of the ability to recognize the thoughts and feelings of other people***. Cave paintings confirm that around this time our ancestors were able to think of an animal as a person, as a true friend, but special love belonged primarily to the big-eyed, furry baby animals. Why do they seem so touching to us? According to ethologist, founder of the science of animal behavior, Nobel laureate Konrad Lorenz, our tenderness is genetically programmed: animal cubs remind us of our human ones. And we babble, as if with a baby: “Who is so small and so cute?” “According to one theory,” explains Hel Herzog, “love for animals arises as a result of the erroneous triggering of the maternal instinct.” Animal psychologist Elena Fedorovich explains: “We are attracted to pets not only by their touching appearance, but also by their childish (infantile) behavior. An attachment to animals arises as to babies who depend on us and need care and help. They make us feel needed.” It is interesting that the selection of domestic animals (especially dogs and cats) follows this “childish” pattern: more and more new breeds are animals with a large head, a small body, a flattened nose, a convex forehead, and large eyes****.

Who doesn't love animals?

A small child can, without any pity, tear off the wings of a fly to see if it will fly after that. According to , it is natural for children to want to satisfy their impulses in any way. And only over the years, thanks to family upbringing, they begin to perceive a pet as a friend. In a survey of three hundred 13-year-old children, 90% of them answered that animals are capable of unconditional love*. And only 10% said they didn’t like the idea of ​​having a cat, dog or hamster at home. Indifference to animals in itself is not a problem, but if a child takes pleasure in making them suffer, then there is a high probability that he has a tendency towards deviant behavior. Thus, among killers accused of sex crimes, 46% had abused animals as children or teenagers.

Galina Severskaya

It is difficult to unambiguously explain the meaning of our affection from the point of view of evolution: it is unlikely that love for our pet helped our ancestors pass on their genes and gave them a reproductive advantage. And they domesticated animals not only for mercantile reasons - help in hunting and food. First of all, they were driven by an attempt to overcome the primitive horror of being bitten to death, torn to shreds, and eaten. And if it was not possible to tame lions, panthers, leopards and tigers, then they domesticated a simple cat and felt like conquerors of the wild. Today we would say that by domesticating animals, their self-esteem became significantly higher. “I am very pleased with the idea of ​​the cat as a symbol of the lion, as a miniature copy of the king of beasts,” wrote Konrad Lorenz in his famous book “A Man Makes a Friend.”

But only in the 20th century did dogs and cats turn into truly domestic pets, they were allowed into children's rooms and master bedrooms, and most importantly, they began to be picked up, that is, tactile contact arose, from which both we and they enjoy. This is what finally brought humans and pets closer together. “The phenomenon of anthropomorphism has arisen,” states Elena Fedorovich. – People began to attribute their own values, motives, behavioral traits and abilities to animals. For example, spontaneously mentioned qualities of dogs are loyalty, affection, intelligence, intelligence, prudence, respect and appreciation, rationality, sense of responsibility, gratitude.” By the way, dogs and cats are excellent at initiating contact with us using their gaze. Animal psychologists have noticed that owners are more satisfied with the dog that looks at them more often*****.

The amount of positive emotions from communicating with an animal is so great that we begin to feel better. Scientists from Azuba University (Japan) have found that even a simple game with four-legged friends stimulates the production of oxytocin in our body - the hormone of trust, tenderness, and affection. Oxytocin helps overcome stress and depression, gives rise to positive emotions and strengthens faith in people. We think: “Finally, I’m home!” When our dog meets us at the door, wags his tail, barks joyfully, looks devotedly into the eyes and rushes, standing on his hind legs, to lick us right on the nose.

Our relationship with a pet is psychologically much easier and simpler than relationships between people. Largely because there is no verbal contact - there are no extra words, explanations and clarification of who is right. Therefore, sometimes it is easier for us to tell a dog, cat or parrot about our worries, problems and troubles. “Their wordless participation is involuntarily perceived by us as support,” says Elena Fedorovich. “In the end, it doesn’t matter what it means in the animal’s language. It’s just that we naturally have affiliation – the need to create warm, close, meaningful relationships both among ourselves and with representatives of the animal world.”

They have the power to unite us

EVEN A SIMPLE PLAY WITH A PET STIMULATES OUR PRODUCTION OF OXYTOCIN - THE HORMONE OF ATTACHMENT, TRUST, TENDERNESS.

“As a child, I didn’t have a dog, although I really asked my parents to buy one for me,” recalls 47-year-old Dmitry. “But the neighbors at the dacha had a dog, a husky - big, shaggy, strong, trained by the owner for serious hunting. He treated children as if they were toys. He throws me onto the grass and plays with my head like a ball. Parents, of course, did not like such fun, but we - all the neighboring children - adored this dog precisely for his protective attitude towards us, brutality, strength and beauty. Now it seems to me that this is how we tried to compensate for the absence of always busy adults next to us.” Pets are born mediators. “They maintain emotional balance in the family, reduce tension in the couple’s relationship, and help the teenager separate from his parents,” family psychotherapist Anna Varga analyzes the situation. “And sometimes they can also ‘replace’ a family member who has died or left the family as a result of growing up or divorce.”

Charm of a lady with an ermine

Does the attitude towards a person change if there is an animal next to him or in his arms? On instructions from psychologists at the University of California at Davis (USA), three girls rode public transport. One appeared on the bus with either a rabbit or a turtle. The second was blowing soap bubbles, and the third was watching portable TV. Men approached the girl who had animals in her hands much more often and talked to her much longer. “They unconsciously perceived her as caring, warm and attentive, and therefore a good friend,” comments psychologist Susan Hunt. – Besides, the four-legged pet was a great way to start a conversation*.

* Cerveau et Psycho, 2008, vol. 25.

“When we communicate with animals, we involuntarily become more attentive to other people,” notes Hel Herzog. – They most often live in families with school-age children (and really teach them to be kinder and more responsible). Less often - among lonely people, but they are the ones who are attached to animals more than anyone else.” At some times in life, communicating with a pet can completely satisfy our need for communication. During an argument or a period of depression, when we are especially vulnerable, we may prefer the company of a pet to communication with people. After all, alone with Rex or Murka, we don’t have to worry about how we look in their eyes, we don’t have to make an effort to hide our condition.

The unconscious fuels our attraction to some animals and alienation from others. Thus, most teenage girls have a tender attachment to horses. “Such attachment is three times more common in them than in boys,” says zoologist Desmond Morris*****. “Horses are a symbolic embodiment of masculinity and perhaps this is what attracts growing girls.”

Repression tricks

Animals today are increasingly endowed with every possible virtue: they are sincere and incapable of lying, they are innocent and kind by nature. And of course, they are contrasted with people. “In fact, the misanthrope is often a frustrated humanist,” muses psychoanalyst Gerard Morel. - Someone who is offended by people because they did not live up to his hopes. They turned out to be insufficiently reliable, faithful, understanding... In a word, not humane enough. And increased sensitivity to animals can compensate for the inability to give free rein to one’s feelings when interacting with people.” If one of us is more touched by a chick that has fallen from its nest than by an old man who became ill on the street, it is not a matter of indifference. Vice versa. “The chick immediately awakens in us the desire to come to the rescue,” says the psychoanalyst. “And the sight of a person in trouble scares us.” We find ourselves face to face with our own fear of death. So we turn away."

For some reason, no one has yet founded a social movement in defense of spiders, mosquitoes and voles. Few people, except fishermen and environmentalists, care about the fate of pollock. We are more likely to be touched by animals that evoke aesthetic admiration. We admire large predators, their beauty and strength - and our warm feelings intensify when we learn that they are under threat of extermination. A female whale with her kits, cutting through the waves of the ocean, seems to us even more majestic and touching because it can become prey for a whaler. When we see a polar bear rushing across a glacier that is melting due to the fault of people, we forget that it could cripple us with one blow of its clawed paw. On TV we see the most beautiful, specially selected footage from the life of animals. But how can we then eat big-eyed calves, curly-haired lambs, and fluffy chickens for hot meat? “Repression is a mental reaction that allows us to throw into the unconscious images that are too disturbing for us,” continues the psychoanalyst. “It protects us so well from feelings of guilt that at dinner we completely forget that we are eating the flesh of a living creature.” And this circumstance does not prevent the growth of misanthropic sentiments in society - animals are better than humans.”

Obviously, we are no better and no worse. And for thousands of years we get along well, mutually influencing each other. So the anecdote about chimpanzees, participants in a scientific experiment, one of whom says to the other: “What trainable people these people are! Now I’ll press the button, and this guy in a white coat will bring me a banana.”

* Journal of Business Research, 2008, vol. 61.

** Anthrozoos, 1998, vol. eleven.

*** M. Tomasello “Origins of Human Communication”. MIT Press, 2008.

**** A. Varga, E. Fedorovich “On the psychological role of pets in the family”, Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University, 2009, No. 3, vol. 1.

***** “Man and Woman”, DVD, BBC, “Soyuz Video”, 2004.

* S. Ciccotti, N. Gueguen “Pourguoi les gens ont-ils meme tete gue leur chien?”. Dunod, 2010.

About it

• “A Man Finds a Friend” Konrad Lorenz We say “dog devotion” – but not all dogs are equally loyal. Some descend from the jackal, while others from the wolf, and they require a different approach. The outstanding animal psychologist and brilliant novelist Konrad Lorenz shows how complex, interesting and deep the relationship between a dog and a person can be (Zakharov, 2001).
• “Joy, nastiness and lunch. The whole truth about our relationship with animals" Hel Herzog Psychology professor Hel Herzog has an amazing sense of humor, enormous erudition and a special area of ​​​​research interests - he explores "why people bring home cats, birds, turtles and even birds and treat them like members families". There are several versions... (Career Press, 2011).

"Let's save the animals!"
“The little dog needs a home!”
“Do not be indifferent to the suffering of our little brothers!”

Similar calls can be seen in hundreds on social networks, in advertisements on poles, in newspapers, and even in subtitles for television shows. There are more and more people concerned about the fate of animals. More and more often, news reports contain columns about elderly people who keep dozens of cats in their cramped apartments. The number of shelters for dogs and other pets is growing. No one is surprised anymore by the volunteer teams that go every autumn to the ocean coast to rescue dolphins that have jumped out of the water. Charitable funds in favor of endangered animal breeds are growing every day. The level of culture and the value of not only human life, but also the life of animals, is rapidly increasing.

Analyzing all this, we believe that the world is becoming brighter and kinder. But is this really so? Does the level of hostility between people decrease with an increase in love and attention to animals? After all, each of us usually thinks: “he loves all living creatures so much, he’s probably just as kind to people.” But do the ardent defenders of our little brothers have a friendly attitude towards people?

It turns out that this is not always the case. The lack of tolerance for people and even a modicum of love for them among lovers of four-legged animals can be seen in news reports and in complaints on various forums.

Thus, people living next door to cat owners note their hostility and high degree of hostility towards other people. They often complain about threats coming from their animal-loving neighbors.

The image of such people is very colorfully reflected in the heroine “Crazy Cat Lady” of the series “The Simpsons”. This character is a woman who surrounds herself with cats and uses them to protect herself from people by throwing small kittens at them.
Where does that warmth, that awe and love that these people show towards animals go when they have to interact with other people?

The defenders of our little brothers explain their hostile attitude towards others by saying that they are insidious, cruel, and greedy. This is not the case in animals. They will not betray, they will not kill for the sake of profit, they do not have that pettiness, bile and hatred that is inherent in people. But is this really the reason for such a tender attitude towards animals and dislike for people? No! These are rationalizations that people seek to justify their behavior. The real reason is the insufficient development of the visual vector.

Mysteries of our vision

As soon as a person began to feel his neighbor, he had one desire - to eat him! He felt hostility towards his neighbor, because every person carries a danger to another. But along with hostility came a feeling of complete dependence on each other. People could not and still cannot live alone. We depend on each other, we need each other. But the feeling of hostility from the feeling of dependence does not decrease. And then the need arose for a force that counteracts hostility - love. And this power was endowed with one vector – the visual.

Until now, only people with a visual vector are able to love as fiercely and sacrificially, as is sung in songs and spoken of in poems; the rest are only able to create emotional connections on this basis.

When we love the wrong ones

There are four levels of development of the visual vector, as well as all other vectors: inanimate, plant, animal and human. At the “human” level, the visual vector is capable of boundless love for all humanity - the highest degree of humanism. At the same time, he can create strong emotional bonds with both individuals and animals. But these emotions cannot fill the visual vector at the “person” level; the greatest satisfaction comes from connections with other people.

If the visual vector is at the animal level, then it is not capable of love for all of humanity, but only for individual people, as well as living creatures, plants and inanimate nature - for art, for example. But if the visual vector is at the plant level, then a person is able to experience love only in relation to four-legged animals, without being able to love a person, and, even more so, all of humanity.

But this is not enough to fully realize the visual vector and get maximum pleasure from life. That is why such people need not just one pet, but many at once, in order to create an emotional connection with each of them and, having filled their vector, enjoy life.

They cannot fall in love with a person, rarely create families, and remain lonely. This is confirmed by real-life examples - people who create nurseries or keep dozens of pets in their apartments, as a rule, do not have their own families, loved ones and children. Boundless love for pets can also appear in the event of the loss of a loved one, due to a sharp break in the emotional connection with him. Then a temporary attempt is made to fill the deficiencies in the visual vector, creating smaller and more multiple emotional connections.

If people with an undeveloped visual vector do not create an emotional connection at all, do not give love to their pets, do not empathize with them, sympathize with their pain, then they will remain in fear and severe phobias. Surrounding themselves with animals protects them from fears, but do they benefit humanity?

Are all animal lovers incapable of loving people?

Of course, we can give many examples of people who carefully take care of their dogs or cats, but at the same time do not forget about people. They have children and full-fledged families, which means they are able to love both animals and people. And this does not at all contradict everything written above, it only means that the vector is at a level above the inanimate.
Any higher level includes the abilities of the levels below it. But if a person with a visual vector in a developed state has to make a choice between saving another person and a cat, for example, he will give preference to the first.
People with an insufficiently developed visual vector are ready to cry at the sight of a homeless puppy, but they do not feel a drop of compassion for a child in a wheelchair.

The role of the visual vector is to reduce hostility through love, to create culture and secondary restrictions on primary urges, including murder. It is only thanks to the visual vector that we still exist in a team; without its influence, people would not be able to control their hostility towards each other.

With their emotionality, ability to sympathize, sympathize and love, people with a visual vector should reduce hostility in society. Make him truly kinder and more tolerant. And a developed visual vector copes well with this role. Advanced viewers are volunteers who travel to African countries to save children from serious diseases. They are regulars at nursing homes, orphanages, and homes for the disabled.

With their sensitivity and ability to compassion, they instill hope in the hearts of sick people and the elderly. They create incredible kindness feature films that instill cultural values ​​in people. They write books and poems, sing songs about love and the brightest feelings. With such activities they help not only individual people, giving them their care and attention, but also humanity as a whole, reducing the level of hostility in society.

But remaining at a low level of development, inanimate or vegetative, they are not able to fully fulfill their species role. They are not capable of love for humans and are content with love for animals, which only gives them liberation from fears.

Why doesn't the visual vector develop?

Our vectors develop before puberty, after the end of this period a person cannot develop them, he can only realize himself. The development of each vector requires certain conditions. The visual vector develops, creating emotional connections, learning to love and compassion.

If a child with a visual vector does not create an emotional connection with his parents or with the people who are raising him, he begins to create these connections with his toys - teddy bears, bunnies, dolls. He sees them as living beings, talks to them, making up for the lack of connection with loved ones.

You can help a child develop his visual vector by teaching him compassion:
“Look, you dropped the doll, she’s in pain, let’s take pity on her.”
“Do you see a homeless dog? “She’s hungry, let’s feed her.”
“The child broke his leg, now it hurts, I feel sorry for him, what about you?”

But, if a child, right up to puberty, does not receive proper attention from the people around him, if he does not learn compassion and cannot create an emotional connection with people, then, having passed puberty, he will never be able to do this. And in this case, he will have only two options left: to remain in fear for the rest of his life and suffer from phobias and panic attacks, or to surround himself with animals and never love a person.

Written based on training materials on System-Vector Psychology by Yuri Burlan

Alena Nikolaeva, marketing specialist

A cat is the closest friend, the second “I” of the owner, so if someone doesn’t like the cat, then he doesn’t like its owner either. Cats are usually owned by ladies who harmoniously combine the advantages of both sexes. Such women are beautiful and smart, feminine and efficient, efficient and effective, pretty and persistent in achieving their goals.

For unmarried cats, cats often replace a non-existent child, because a cat also needs care, affection and tenderness; it is a playful and capricious animal, like a child. A lonely woman with a cat treats men with distrust and is reluctant to enter into close relationships with them. A man who likes cats recognizes a woman's right to be independent. But a bachelor with a cat is a completely self-sufficient person, and it will take a lot of strength to win his heart. Hatred of cats can mean hatred of the entire female sex. In psychology, there is even a term “cat phobia” (scientifically, eilurophobia). Ladies who despise cats feel bad about themselves deep down, and cat-phobic men don’t truly love women.

Dogs

For a woman, her dog is almost always a symbol of a man, even if the dog is female. Looking at the breed, you can always tell which male qualities the owner values ​​most.

A large shepherd means that its owner needs a protector and reliable support. Bulldog means that a woman values ​​her partner’s loyalty, reliability, solidity, constancy and sense of humor. The lady with the Doberman has an iron willpower and is defiant towards men - who can protect me better than my dog? A woman who holds a malicious, yapping, biting and cowardly creature in her arms makes too high demands on men, expecting to find some incredibly wonderful qualities in them. As a result, such women are rarely happy in marriage. Almost everyone who loves dogs is intolerant of the independence of others and seeks to control the lives and actions of loved ones.

It is believed that only evil and cruel people cannot stand dogs, but this is not always the case. Opponents of bobbies and bugs simply may be shy, fearful, may be afraid of these biting and loudly barking predators, or perhaps they simply prefer to seek love and friendship in the human world and do not understand why they might need this little wolf. Many people are disgusted by the need to train another living creature and become its owner, and therefore they flatly refuse to have a dog at home.

Hamsters and guinea pigs

Everyone who loves small furry animals needs the protection of a strong man, tenderness, affection and care, since they themselves feel small and defenseless. That's why children so often ask to buy a hamster; they want to be big, strong, caring friends for tiny animals. If a person cannot stand the stupidity of other people, then he is unlikely to be moved at the sight of a hamster or guinea pig.

Parrots

Exotic bright birds appeal to romantics, melancholic, sensitive, vulnerable people who are bored in silence and loneliness. The parrot reminds of tropical islands, fairy-tale pirates and compensates for the lack of travel in everyday life. Birds are not tolerated by irritable, hot-tempered, workaholics, overloaded with work, sybarites: loudly chirping and piercingly screaming parrots disturb their comfort, confuse their thoughts and confuse their plans.

Rats

Loving rats means declaring to the whole world: I am not a bore! I have original thinking, and your stereotypes have no power over me! A rat fanatic will first study everything, touching and checking, and only then draw his own conclusions. And he doesn't care about other people's opinions. If a child brings home a rat, it means he has a sociable, cheerful, kind-hearted character. Rats are not liked by conservatives, shy, timid, cautious people who follow only beaten paths in life.

Based on materials from wday.ru

Word to the specialist

“Everything in nature is created in such a way that there is a close relationship, complete harmony of man with the entire animal world. No one is superfluous. As soon as someone is excluded from nature, an imbalance arises and flaws appear in the whole. Man, as a supreme being, is obliged to preserve, protect animals, feed and water them. These are the requirements for people who are given the opportunity to enjoy the entire world around them, including living beings living with them or near them. They must fulfill their duties towards them. Where do people come from who not only do not love animals, but treat them cruelly, beat and kill them?

From birth, a person has a reflex of a kind attitude towards animals, birds, and other vertebrates. However, in the course of life, the wrong, sometimes malicious, cruel attitude of parents towards animals and, above all, towards abandoned animals that have become homeless, forms the same attitude in their children. At first this manifests itself as imitation of adults and adolescents, then this behavior becomes more and more consolidated, acquiring pathological forms of an asocial, aggressive, psychopathic nature.

Observations of mentally ill children show that everything seems to begin with something innocent and insignificant: just think, an earthworm was cut into pieces with a piece of glass, or the wings of a butterfly were torn off. Then he hit a sparrow or a pigeon with a slingshot, knocked out a cat’s eye, and threw kittens or puppies into a garbage chute. Children imitate adults; before their eyes, they drown kittens and puppies, mutilate them, and throw them out into the street. If in the evening someone, feeling sorry for a freezing animal, brought it into the entrance, then by morning it will disappear forever - it will be thrown out or killed. Exceptions, unfortunately, are rare.

Special studies have shown that 90% of criminals in childhood and adolescence showed sophisticated sadism towards animals and were flayers. However, not only children with defects in upbringing and deviant (due to developmental disorders) behavior, but also some adults cruelly abuse animals, while experiencing pleasure.

Thus, the main subjects (I don’t even call them people, because they are devoid of true human content) who show cruelty to animals are psychopaths - subjects with antisocial character traits, aggressive, destructive tendencies. They are especially dangerous when they decompensate from their psychopathic state. Despite mental disabilities, they are completely sane and must be held accountable for crimes in accordance with the articles of the Civil and Criminal Codes.

Some mentally healthy people are indifferent to animals - they do not love them, but they do not show cruelty towards them. The third category consists of those who do not like animals and do not tolerate the people who love them. People endowed with the ability to sincerely, humanly empathize (“sympathy is given to us, just as grace is given to us,” remember?), to love animals unselfishly, cause them to hate. Unfortunately, the media often add fuel to the fire, provoking the latter to commit crimes. This happens when incompetent journalists get down to business, do not know the roots of the problem, are not responsible for what they write or say, in a word, do not know what they are doing. Propaganda of intolerant attitudes towards animals is also criminal, because it makes a significant contribution to the tightening of morals in society as a whole.

People who take care of animals, especially homeless, abandoned ones, feed them and birds, worthy of respect, are real people, people with a capital “P”. They should not be insulted or condemned, but should be set as an example. They personify the spiritual health of the nation, as the author of an article about such “white crows” published in Izvestia once accurately and succinctly formulated. As a psychoneurologist, I can state that these are normal people. Yes, they are “white”! If there were more “white crows”, there would be fewer black crows.

Raising a child in isolation from the animal world is an abnormal upbringing, the upbringing of narcissists, egoists who, even if they do not show obvious cruelty at first, will still treat coldly not only animals, but also their parents. In old age, they will feel this and understand that they raised their children incorrectly, but it will be too late.

Workers at disinfection stations, disinfection departments, housing offices and regional distribution centers, while fighting rodents, lay out poisons in the basements of residential buildings. However, instead of rats, they destroy abandoned cats and kittens, which find the only shelter there, especially in winter. All ventilation openings are bricked up. No measures are taken to prevent poisoning and mass death of animals. This is a clear manifestation of cruelty, for which the perpetrators must be held accountable (see the section “Environmental Crimes” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). By the way, they seem to have completely forgotten that cats themselves catch rats. The same applies to children's and medical institutions, where dogs and cats are mercilessly destroyed. Animals that have become homeless (note, always due to human fault) should not be destroyed, but kept in shelters and specially designated places of residence for the purpose of transferring them to old or new owners.

Catching animals should not be carried out by subjects (and the overwhelming majority are asocial types) who hate them. Catching, and only sanitary (there can be no other way), must be carried out mercifully, with minimal mental trauma to those present, without provoking heart attacks and hypertensive crises in them. The reality of this, to put it mildly, is far from it, so it is better to give the animal to sympathizers, they will find a home for it themselves - they will leave it with themselves or with friends for a while, and then they will find a home for it.

A significant part of people have a negative attitude towards animals because of their selfishness, limited intelligence, lack of basic knowledge about animals, and misconceptions about them. Some, barely getting out of barracks and crowded apartments, react hysterically to animals. God forbid, a sparrow or a dove lands on their windowsill, and if someone nearby is also feeding the birds... - screams are heard from the window - threats to kill both the birds and the people who feed them.

A callous attitude towards animals is characteristic not only of ordinary people, but also of those who are involved in the moral and aesthetic education of children. One winter I picked up a dying kitten that a homeless person had thrown on the asphalt. The closest building was a music school. There I managed to stop the bleeding, but the kitten was in a comatose state (profound impairment of consciousness). School workers ordered the kitten to be thrown outside. I took him with me and went out. He grew up and became a member of our family. Passing by this school, I remember the story with the kitten.

There are people who do not like animals because they suffer from neurotic disorders and experience unreasonable fear: lest they get infected! Moreover, their argumentation is so primitive that it reaches extreme absurdity and indicates the presence of mental disorders. There are patients with obsessions and fears. Some, for example, are afraid of becoming infected with psittacosis from birds, worms, lichen from cats and dogs, etc. Others insist that AIDS and syphilis are transmitted from birds, which is why they maim and kill them. This category cannot be corrected in any way; it is impossible to convince such subjects.

We have touched only a small part of the complex problem of animal cruelty. Much remains behind the scenes. As you can see, this problem affects both children and adults. It has great moral significance and characterizes the moral content of society.”